So which one(s) are you strongly considering?

One of the most remarkable aviators that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting was the late Gp Capt Dickie Maydwell DSO DFC. Among his many accomplishments was to be the Commanding Officer of No.14 Squadron in Italy when they received the Martin Marauder Mk.1.

He had a very high regard for the aircraft and the amount of punishment that it would take and still get you home. He was always of the opinion that those who did not read "what it said on the side of the tin" were quite likely to pay a high price for not doing so but those who flew it properly had a very high regard for the machine.

Interestingly enough, Dickie and his crew shot down an SM82, a Ju290 and an Me323 Gigant from their Marauder. The Me323 crash landed on a beach in Corsica and Dickie visited the wreckage some days later. He sawed off some propeller tips and kept one on his mantelpiece.

Many years later he met the captain of the Gigant and presented him with one of the propeller tips. They became huge friends and went hunting together but not with machine guns!

The one(s) that are supplied at the lowest bid price, when put out to tender, of course!!
Isn't that how we get the very best, fighters and bombers, for our forces??? .. :ooh:

Germany's Starfighters
 

I am old enough to remember the hoo-har about German F104 losses.

As I recall, the reason given at the time for these losses was that the Luftwaffe wanted the aircraft to be capable of a wider range of roles than those for which it was designed. (I don't recall what these were). As a result, a good deal of additional equipment was stuffed into it, making it heavier than its American counterpart and a bu**er to fly.

That's my recollection anyway.

Broomstick.

A common sad joke in the GAF at the time was that if you wanted your own Starfighter just buy an acre of land in Germany and wait!

Doesn't sound very sporting, now does it ? ;)

So it would have been OK for Rommel to have his supplies uninterrupted by the Royal Air Force?

By the same token one could say that U-boats sinking merchant ships was scarcely cricket either.

War is hell!

I should like to make a further point about the inherent qualities of the a/c and the training of crew. Specifically, what we now call 'the learning curve'.

As military jet a/c were being introduced, the problem of teaching crew to adapt form piston to jet powered was significant. The time lag of the power was being learnt the bard way. (for the layman - in a piston, if you advance the throttle, the power will arrive very quickly. In a jet it will not, in the ram jets of the early 1950s, the time delay in moving the throttle and the power arriving was significant. This led many learners to apply power to late and then - concerned that nothing was happening - apply more. Whereupon ALL the power would arrive in one rush and cause great difficulties that might not be overcome.) I sit to be corrected.

This learning curve took the lives of many students and their tutors. Nowadays, this is taught in the SIM.

The Marauder's electric props were subject to a lot of failures and often it happened during takeoff. When the electrical props failed, they went into flat pitch and you wound up with 'one a day in Tampa Bay".

Doolittle took the airplane on tour to dispel the impression it was a killer and often would beat up an airfield with *1* engine shut down just to show how, if procedures were followed, the B-26 was not a widow maker.

It was a fast, state of the art airplane when it first rolled out. Complex electrical systems along with increased maintenance procedures helped create the image of a killer.

Many 104's DID have downward ejecting seats. Indeed the Danish a/c had them. They were replaced with MB seatswhich, like the Lockheed C2, were upward firing.

The Lockheed folk were worried about ejecting pilots getting hit by the T tail.

Under consideration
 

Apologies for late reply and absence from this thread. Not sure of the shortlist yet, since I am having to do more research into many of the suggestions. Even though I specified combat aircraft, I have been more than interested in the Civil suggestions like the MU-2. I guess I hadn't anticipated high attrition rates in 'modern' aircraft. I have also been struck how our attitudes to safety have changed. Today, even a handful of losses (one?) draws massive attention and executive action. The aircraft that seem to stand out - and also offer a spread of interest - would seem to be: Post war: Meteor and Sea Vixen; Modern era: F104, Indian Mig 21, TU-22 Blinder. WW1: BE2; WW2: BP Defiant, Fairey Battle.

Not much of a widowmaker (great structure and aero qualities), but the Howard DGA in Naval trainer role (NH-1) was called the "Ensign Eliminator" for its ground-handling qualities. :}

Would just like to add the Bristol Brigand to this unfortunate category.

Only used operationally in Malaya exploding cannon shells, problems with props coming off and issues with air brakes made this an aircraft with an unenviable reputation. Don't know the exact stats on it but rumour has it that it was often flown one up to reduce casualties until replaced - in haste - by Hornet and Canberra.

No one has mentioned the Nomad yet:}

What about the ME109. I understand that well over half of the 30,000+ produced were lost in accidents - mostly on landing.

Widow makers
 

An aptly named candidate A/C for your list would be the large twin boomed, twin engined, 'Black Widow', --- plus the Bell 'Airacobra' which did'nt get a great write up, as it's 'car type' cockpit door' opening against the slipstream made it almost impossible to get out of in an emergency.

The ME 109 also was a German 'Widow maker' in the hands of trainees & inexperienced pilots.

Dusty

How, pray tell, could one differentiate the two? :}

Me163 is a good example along with the Japanese copy (Mitsubishi Ki-200). Heinkel 177 Greif a beautiful example of an aircraft incapable of it's mission. 4 engined bomber connected to a single prop on each side, so giving the appearance of being a twin. Would burst into flames at the drop of a hat as oil leaked onto the red hot exhaust manifolds.

The Botha
 

An acquaintance of mine of many years ago flew Bothas in WWII.

He said his first sight of a Botha was arriving at OCU and seeing the fuselage and tail of a Botha, standing like a monument, pointing vertically skywards in a neighbouring field.

Apparently, the Botha had a deathtrap of a fuel system. At start up, the fuel selector could too easily be turned too far and into the 'reserve' sector, thereby switching fuel supply away from the main tanks to the separate reserve tank.

This contained just enough fuel to start up, taxi to the hold, run up, line up, take off and get about 50 feet off the ground.

Then both engines would suffer a dead cut and the aircraft, heavily laden for the sortie and with its main tanks still brim-full of fuel, would have to do a dead stick landing off the aerodrome.

Good fun eh?

Broomstick.

Was it the Botha of which a test pilot, in his report said; "access to the cockpit is difficult, it should be made impossible"